.com.unity Forums

.com.unity Forums (http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/index.php)

- TO&Es (http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/forumdisplay.php?f=108)

- - Bradleys (http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/showthread.php?t=45364)

USA some minor possible errors.

M2A3, slower versions with ERA are designated M2A3+ can the same be done with M3A3 versions.

In case its an oversight though may well be correct A3 version carries a lot more ammo for its cannon, 150 vs 90 rounds.

Scout formations use M3A3 version long before other formations???

Mech AT & BSFV(manpads) do the reverse always using M2A3s???

Green OOB Bradley unit 525 slipped through the net has 200 plus rounds.
British OOB Mastifs units700, 701, 704
There is a dicrepancy in front heat armour, the basic version has hull (I think) of 12 while the plus versions use standard AP armour levels.

Also USMC has approved APRWS rockets for its helos by the look of it.
Only mention as I brought it up & the fact quite a few people are developing "smart rocket tech"
Will try to monitor & report where things are as a lump once get near to the next patch:)

Actually I think the term is APKWS or (Advanced Precision Kill Weapon System).:) And I swear I saw Cobra units for the USMC OOB with guided rockets, although they may have been for the middle of this decade, so they would be kind of late.

Saw this earlier this month while looking into PATRIOT/MEADS program. It was posted by this site this month. Seems they were just being tested (Final.) this past January. Don't know status of this within the game but, it seems it's not fielded yet. Also the Army killed the program at their end in the Fiscal 2008 Budget.
http://www.defense-update.com/newsca...009042010.html and
http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/...d-phase-02193/
The Navy takes over:
http://www.deagel.com/news/US-Navy-t...000005267.aspx
For the techs:
http://www.baesystems.com/ProductsSe..._s2_apkws.html
Have great weekend all!
Regards,
Pat

John,
Hope this helps? Note BRADLEY ammo load out from these sites and just good GP info for rest:
http://www.military-today.com/apc/m2_bradley.htm and this shows the consistency of the first source in the comparison of ammo load out (Bottom of this next article.) between types:
http://www.globalsecurity.org/milita...round/m2a3.htm
These also provide performance info.
Pics:
Attachment 10001 Attachment 10002
Attachment 10003 Attachment 10004
Have a great weekend all!
Pat

I posted about this pre patch saying something to look at for the next patch.
A lot of countries are developing some in final phases & may well be in service by the time its due, no real sense in second guessing.
The game currently gives USA Apaches DAGR equiped rockets from mid 2000.
DAGR was Lockheed Martins privatly funded attempt & passed all trials but no takers. Army just showed no intrest in it or the original APKWS (yes I spelt wrong) but the Marine core rejuvinated it & did the trials for APKWS II.

Why keep funding one when you already have a working system probably go ask the politicians.
Why are the marine Core intreasted while the army are not, probably a few factors.
Army still thinking take on the heavier (traditional) forces load Hellfires, hang the cost & logistics is not a big problem.
Marines however logistics is cruicial & an accurate rocket will do the job vs most targets. Plus due to size you can carry a much bigger payload.
Accuracy is on par with a Hellfire at a fraction of the cost or at least the DAGR tests were which is probably why other countries are developing.
Then there are things like the Spike ATGM that use similar tech & are supposedly helo mountable. Dumb missiles so basicly a rocket also outside the scope of the game already tested are anti shipping varients etc.
Computer tech advances at great speed & hence things that can use it do like firecontrol smart launchers instead of smart missiles & there counterparts etc.

FWIW this is why the M3's have 150 rounds and the rest have 90

Don

http://afvdb.50megs.com/usa/m2bradley.html

900 rounds
(300 ready)

http://afvdb.50megs.com/usa/m3bradley.html

1500 rounds
(300 ready)

Quote:

The M3 cavalry fighting vehicle was essentially a restowed M2 Bradley infantry fighting vehicle. The M3 was the cavalry scout version, and its passenger compartment was occupied by two observers and more ammunition and missiles. Since the M3 lacked an infantry squad, it carried no firing port weapons, and the firing ports themselves were covered. The M3 retained the three periscopes between the cargo hatch and entry ramp and the periscopes along the sides of the vehicle.

The M3A1 incorporated the same improvements as the M2A1 Bradley. The CFV differed from the IFV in having NBC masks connected to the central filter for all five crewmen, instead of just the driver, gunner, and vehicle commander. The three periscopes on the rear deck were omitted in the M3A1, and replaced by four periscopes in the cargo hatch itself. The two periscopes on the right side of the passenger copmpartment were also deleted.

http://www.globalsecurity.org/milita...nd/m2a2ods.htm

Quote:

5) Ammunition: IFV CFV
25mm 900 1500
7.62mm 4400 7600
5.56mm 5040 1600
TOW 5 12
JAVELIN 2 0
AT4 3 0

It doesn't require a lot of effort to find sources that disagree. These three differ for the number of TOW missiles the IFV Bradley carries. Globalsecurity in this quote claims 5 total whereas http://afvdb.50megs.com/usa/m2bradley.html claims 5 in hull and two in turret and that matches what we already have as does the 12 total carried for the CFV version. The real " error" is the number of passengers we allow in the CFV. If I change those to 2 passengers there looks like a couple of formations that would need adjusting

Can someone who may have actually served in CFV Bradley's confirm this quote please

Quote:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/dna/h2g2/A1007650

A cavalry section in a Bradley unit will consist of two Bradley Cavalry Fighting Vehicles.
The senior Bradley commander on the two Bradley's is the section leader. There are three sections in a Cavalry platoon.

in this case I would highly prefer first hand info not something else dug off the 'net

Don

Cheers wish more sites were laid out as nice & clear as that guys.

Quote:

Originally Posted by DRG (Post 742367)

Can someone who may have actually served in CFV Bradley's confirm this quote please

Quote:

in this case I would highly prefer first hand info not something else dug off the 'net

Don

According to FKSM 71-8, Armor/Cavalry Reference Data, Brigade Combat Teams, dated November 2005, the Cavalry Platoon, Cavalry Troop, Cavalry Battalion (TOE 17-207) assigned to Heavy Brigade Combat Teams, has 5 HMMWVs and 3 M3 CFVs. The Scout Platoon, Headquarters and Headquarters Company, Combined Arms Battalion has 3 Scout Sections each with 3 M3 CFVs and 3 HMMWVs.

In 2003, when that article was written the 2 vehicle sections might have been the case for units that had not converted yet to the modular force structure. The Fort Knox Supplemental Manual itself might be dated or inaccurate. The information from the FKSM was, however, taken straight from the applicable TOEs at that time.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Imp (Post 742382)

Cheers wish more sites were laid out as nice & clear as that guys.

Unfortunately, the US Army method of designating units is confusing and obtuse. There is a lot on that website that is incorrect (emphasis added where useful):

Quote:

For instance, the soldier who was in that unit could say, 'I served in the mortar platoon, 1/5 Infantry when I was in Korea,' which conveys almost as much information.

With the elimination of the Regiment as a tactical unit under the Combat Arms Regimental System, the written format was modified to indicate instances where units were organic to the larger entity, or were simply an element of a parent regiment. Organic connections were noted by a "/," while simply being a member of a parent regiment was indicated by a "-." The correct format would be 1-5 Infantry.

Quote:

In 1984, the Army implemented the Combat Arms Regimental System (CARS).

The US Army adopted the CARS in 1957. It adopted the US Army Regimental System (USARS) in 1983. The most important change was the reintroduction of the Regiment as a physical entity in certain cases, most notably for training regiments.

Quote:

These regiments are not usually units that are deployed in the field.

The regiment has not been a tactical unit in the US Army since 1957, with the sole exception of the Armored Cavalry Regiment. Those regiments that regained their physical property under the USARS are not combat units.

Quote:

For convenience sake, Regiment is often dropped from the name of a unit...

Until 2005, the term "Regiment" was not technically part of the units designation.

Quote:

From time to time, units are redesignated. They retire the colors of an old unit, and take on the colors of a new one. This is called reflagging.

Redesignating and reflagging are not the same. A unit can be redesignated within a certain set of rules. Any unit's personnel can be reflagged as another.

Quote:

Reflagging is not an unusual event. It's done for a variety of units. It's often done to keep the unit alive, and perpetuate the history of distinguished units. Sometimes it's done when force structure changes. In 1995, the Army Explosive Ordnance Disposal (EOD) field was restrucured. It had been made up detachments. Adminsited by regional control teams, who were overseen by an office at Forces Command (FORSCOM). The detachments were transformed into companies, the control teams were made battalions, and the office at FORSCOM was turned into the 52nd Ordnance Group (EOD).

Again, confusion between reflagging and redesignating. Reflagging is done almost entirely for purposes of keeping historically relevant units around. During the draw-down in the 1990s, the US Army Center for Military History was tasked with drawing out a hierarchy of units to be used to determine the order of precedence when activating or inactivating units.

Units have been reflagged recently, however, more recently for the purposes of activating the right type of unit. This was required by the organizational changes under the new modular force structure.

The EOD note is irrelevant. EOD units are not combat arms and therefore they have no regimental lineage. Each numbered unit has a lineage and can be reorganized to a unit of whatever size is required without having to reflag. This is simply redesignation. In some cases non-combat units can even change their numerical designation while maintaining the lineage of previous units, further complicating matters. A good example of how confusing it can get can be seen in the history of what is now the 6th Signal Center.

Quote:

There are several different brigade level organizations. There are regiments, like the 11th Armored Cavalry Regiment; and groups, like the 5th Special Forces Group (Airborne).

While Armored Cavalry Regiments under the modular force structure are organized essentially as separate brigades, this has not always been the case. When regiments went out of style under the CARS, they were replaced by the brigade as the intermediate level entity between maneuver battalions and the divisions to which they were assigned. Groups were generally used to control independant collections of non-maneuver entities (ranging from artillery to various non-combat units). There were no infantry or armored groups. These are also better described as brigade-sized, as these units are generally not assigned at the levels of brigades. Armored Cavalry Regiments and the various Groups are generally assigned at Corps or Army level.

Quote:

They usually consist of three maneuver brigades, one aviation brigade, division artillery (which in turn consists of three artillery battalions), division support command, and several other support units.

While accurate as of 2003 for some Divisions, this has completely changed. The US Army now has "square" divisions, with four maneuver brigades, a combat aviation brigade, a Sustainment Brigade, and a Division Special Troops Battalion.

Quote:

Divisions may be Airborne, Infantry, Armor, or Cavalry Divisions.

By 1990, Divisions were essentially Armored, Mechanized, Light, Airborne, or Air Assault. The 1st Cavalry Division was reorganized as an Infantry Division during the Second World War and has never returned to anything that could be called "cavalry" in nature at the division level. This goes for the 10th Mountain as well. The Armored and Mechanized Divisions have been folded into unified combined arms Heavy Divisions, while a new type, based around the Stryker, has come into being. In addition, individual brigades under the new modular force structure can basically be any type. Many divisions currently cannot be classified as unified in structure. The 25th Infantry Division for instance has two Stryker BCTs, one Infantry BCT, and an Airborne BCT.

Quote:

There are some generic divisions, like the 78th Division (Training Support), in the reserves that are used for training activities like basic training.

There is no such thing as a "generic" division. These are Training Divisions.

Quote:

The 3rd Army is the Army component of Central Command.

Numbered Armies are also written out. It is Third Army not 3rd Army.

The ONLY reason I quoted that BBC website was because it seemed to indicate a US Bradley cavalry section consisted of two Bradley Cavalry Fighting Vehicles and that there were three sections in a Cavalry platoon.

Therefore 6 vehicles in a cav platoon

What I get back is ( I THINK....... ) A Cavalry Platoon = 3 M3 CFVs and a Scout Platoon has 3 Scout Sections each with 3 M3 CFVs

This implies a Bradley Cav platoon is half the size of Bradley Scout Platoon

??

Don

The FKSM is a bit confusing. I re-read it after you pointed that out and it appears that for some reason the (x3) note is mentioned twice for the M3 CFVs in the Battalion Scout Platoon. The Scout Platoon should have three sections, each with one M3 CFV and one HMMWV (or some other combination of the 6 vehicles). This would make more sense and make the number of M3 CFVs in the Scout Platoon equal to that in a Cavalry Platoon.

You can read it yourself here and make your own determination. What is also clear is that on page A-15 it says above the graphics "(X3) SCOUT SECTION," while it also shows another "X3" under the M3 CFV graphic. Looking at other entries, however, it appears that the number under the vehicle is supposed to be a total for all the formations of the type indicated.